Reply With Quote
The SCOTUS does generally defer to precedent though, and never is a sure fire political tool. Many cases to name here old and new (Roe, Obamacare, etc). The fact that there’s precedent to it means that the bar is somewhat lower.
Turnout is cities is big, regardless of demographics. This is why the GOP hasn’t won the popular vote in a while and it’s becoming a trend more than a blip in the radar. The fact that a small bump in participation from minorities like African Americans and Hispanics could cement that is troublesome to an extent, especially because those communities are particularly tribal.
But the point is that it’s not necessarily a people’s problem, it’s a legal problem right now. Like if this would be left to the States, we’ll probably see a fairly different map on this issue right now.
I agree that the current polarization level is counterproductive. But, again, this is discussing the now. The political landscape in the US wasn’t like this 50 years ago, why assume it’ll look like this 50 years from now?
Historically these levels of polarization end up with either a very ugly event (see: civil war) or a long period of hegemony (see: Reagan/Bush admins).
As far as the SCOTUS, yes that’s how it works, but there’s already precedent from the court that the 2nd amendment (or any amendment really) is not beyond being regulated as long as it’s specifically tailored for some purpose, some of which are contemporary. For example, on er, some arguments centered around which weapons are most common for home self-defense. Weapons that clearly did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was written, and might no longer be the popular choice when and if that topic is revisited.
You and I (or ST) might only discuss this during these events, but the actual political machinery that sustains a lot of this (ie: NRA, anti-gun lobbies) work every day. They have to, because politics is by and large about public opinion.
